From: Trans Date: 2013-08-13T06:25:56-04:00 Subject: [ruby-core:56597] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8781][Open] Use require_relative() instead of require() if possible --047d7bdc04e896735804e3d1aae6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:14 AM, SASADA Koichi wrote: > (2013/08/12 15:35), ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote: > > Advantage: > > * require_relative() is faster than require() especially with many gems. > > FYI: with Akira (Matsuda-san), we compare performance of require and > require_relative to load thousands of files. > > Without Bundler, require_relative is good performance. > However, with Bundler, require_relative does not help so much. > Maybe most of Ruby user == Rails programmer use Bundler. > Does anyone know why performance degrades with Bundler? Also, I have wondered before about require_relative performance. In my tests it seemed like it was slower than it should be. That was about a year ago. Has any work been done to optimize it --is there room to optimize it? --047d7bdc04e896735804e3d1aae6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:14 AM, SASADA Koichi &l= t;ko1@atdot.net><= /span> wrote:
(2013/08/12 15:35), ko1 (K= oichi Sasada) wrote:
> Advantage:
> * require_relative() is faster than require() especially with many gem= s.

FYI: with Akira (Matsuda-san), we compare performance of require and<= br> require_relative to load thousands of files.

Without Bundler, require_relative is good performance.
However, with Bundler, require_relative does not help so much.
Maybe most of Ruby user =3D=3D Rails programmer use Bundler.

Does anyone know why performance degrades with Bundle= r?
=C2=A0
Also, I have wondered before about re= quire_relative performance. In my tests it seemed like it was slower than i= t should be. That was about a year ago. Has any work been done to optimize= =C2=A0 it --is there room to optimize it?

--047d7bdc04e896735804e3d1aae6--